Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 16:52:15 -0700
From: Kees Cook <>
To: Andy Lutomirski <>
Cc: Djalal Harouni <>, Solar Designer <>, 
	linux-kernel <>, Network Development <>, 
	LSM List <>, 
	"" <>, 
	Andrew Morton <>, Rusty Russell <>, 
	"Serge E. Hallyn" <>, Jessica Yu <>, 
	"David S. Miller" <>, James Morris <>, 
	Paul Moore <>, Stephen Smalley <>, 
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <>, 
	Tetsuo Handa <>, Ingo Molnar <>, 
	Linux API <>, Dongsu Park <>, 
	Casey Schaufler <>, Jonathan Corbet <>, 
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <>, Mauro Carvalho Chehab <>, 
	Peter Zijlstra <>, Zendyani <>, 
	"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <>, Al Viro <>, 
	Ben Hutchings <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 next 0/3] modules: automatic module
 loading restrictions

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 4:38 PM, Andy Lutomirski <> wrote:
> I think that having the un-resettable mode is unnecessary.  We should
> have option that disables loading modules entirely and cannot be
> unset.  (That means no explicit loads and not implicit loads.)  Maybe
> we already have this.  Otherwise, tightening caps needed for implicit
> loads should just be a normal yes/no setting IMO.

Yup, /proc/sys/kernel/modules_disabled already does this.

Kees Cook
Pixel Security

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.